There certainly is something to what he's saying, but I know several people who proudly declare that they never pay for anything they can download illegally, or don't even appear to understand why one would even consider doing so. There are certainly cases where creators and works have ultimately benefited from illegal distribution, but it's equally certain that this isn't the case for all things. If nothing else, I think it's important to stay mindful of your own behaviour, and ensure it's compatible with the survival and success of the art and entertainment you appreciate. If you're genuinely sampling and exploring, great; if you're pinching because you don't have the money right now, that's probably OK; if you're downright stealing because you love money and hate spending it, I'm not sure I can really get behind that.

It's also worth mentioning that there are legal services like Spotify that serve as a reasonable alternative to piracy (depending on how obscure you want to go, of course).

Then there's a whole other conversation to be had about where the money you spend on art and entertainment actually ends up, of course.

Like I said before, I'm not above the occasional foray into the world of piracy, and I don't think it inherently heralds the downfall of all creative industries, but I do think it's extremely naïve to believe that it doesn't cause any harm at all.

I doubt he's the originator of the thought, but Jeff Gerstmann has said on a few occasions that the solution to piracy is to provide a more convenient legal alternative. I think there's probably some truth to that.

Jeff Gerstmann seems about right. I believe (can't be bothered to find evidence but I for sure promise I've seen it written somewhere and things that are written are always truth) that music piracy took a noticeable downturn when digital distribution became the norm, and game companies who enact punitive DRM seem to get pirated extremely heavily compared to games whose only DRM is Steam (or whatever). Ubisoft's policy on piracy is notably paranoid and self-destructive. I certainly think that the main cause of piracy is accessibility rather than money. Most people don't actually mind paying for things they like; what piracy provides is convenience.

But then, that just applies to folks who pirate the odd thing here and there (I pirate stuff what I doesn't find noplace else, like uh that weird Wendy Carlos album one time and also one by Hilltop Hoods). If someone's pirating music in large volumes, then sure it's a money thing.

If I could retroactively un-pay all the money I've spent on music and games, I wonder if I would. I think I'd like to see the numbers. They're probably not that impressive, because I barely ever buy anything that's at full price.

I'm not saying that piracy is right by any means. But as a means of exposure it's fantastic. I probably never would've heard of Black Moth Super Rainbow unless I had illegally downloaded them. But guess what, I own dang near every record they put out, if not all of them, on vinyl now.

As someone who put part of the money towards a $1200+ recording/mastering/editing session, I get that you want to at least cover costs of recording/advertising/equipment/distribution/etc.. But I also realise that no one is going to listen to some random band if they have to pay $5 just to take one listen ($10 for whatever reason iTunes decided to price our album that way.) In a way it's a great feeling just to get heard.

gif wrote:you can't stuff a coin down a stripper's g-string

Judas Maccabeus wrote:Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

There are slightly less dodgy ways of going about it, though. You could use Spotify, or even find tracks uploaded to YouTube. The latter is in most cases not much more legal (unless it's an officially-uploaded video), but its more transient and not-specifically-designed-for-music nature seems more appropriate for sampling; I can listen to things, but if I really like them and want to take them around with me I'll buy the whole album and have an altogether more convenient experience of it. If I torrent an album, once it's on my computer and my phone it's functionally identical to having bought it, so if nothing else it's easier to forget about the very prospect of having to buy it. Or perhaps that's just me.

That said, perhaps you need to listen to the whole lot as you would anyway to properly get into it or something. I don't know.

Anyway, I trust that everyone here is more-or-less responsible about that sort of thing, so everything is probably OK.

I probably came across more pro-piracy than I actually am. It's true that things like Pandora, Last.fm, and Spotify make it easy to find new music and listen to it legally, but I keep forgetting about Spotify because it is so new, and for me is much less portable than having full access to files without paying the monthly subscription fee for the mobile app.

The point of the matter I was trying to make was that that whole philosophy behind copyright and such is either flawed or over the top ridiculous. I'm sure the copyright authorities of the future will use the chip implants in our brains to charge us for every single thing we hear that is copyrighted, or else use the chip to block it if we decline to pay for it. This means that music will become homogenous and mostly unheard. Maybe I'm just a little pessimistic about the future.

gif wrote:you can't stuff a coin down a stripper's g-string

Judas Maccabeus wrote:Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Don't make me sic the thought police on you. Also getting beck on topic, Morrison Hotel is indeed pretty great. But so is The Soft Parade (except for the actual song "The Soft Parade" which kind of sucks). Audiosurf, GO!

(On an unrelated note, since I have disabled my browsing history in Youtube, it keeps feeding me "recommendations" that I guess are based on global popularity, which inevitably consist of skinny bethonged asses pointing aggressively at me, with the explicit promise that it will somehow devolve into an "epic fail".)

in regards to piracy, i was forced to illegally download "the devil wears prada" because my girlfriend's class assigned it to her to watch but did not provide a method for watching it. it's a movie that neither of us really care to own, and we both saw it together about 4 years ago so of course we didn't memorize the dang thing i checked our satellite on-demand feature and they actually had it, but it was not scheduled to air until two days after her assignment was due. our local redbox doesn't carry movies older than about 6 months, and we weren't about to buy a copy just to watch it one time and then put away forever.

i have a friend who says if they made at least $1 million off of their work, then he should be free to take it through piracy. i know it's all justification for not having to spend money, but i do agree in principle with him that after a certain point the artist/studio/whatever should probably not complain about phantom "lost sales" due to piracy.

ntw3001 wrote:Sass has to come from the heart, not from the shirt.

traubster wrote:I find it irritating whenever I walk through a cemetery and there's not one gravestone that reads something like, "We're all grateful that he's dead. Sorry if he owed you money."

Are they the people who forced The Electric Soft Parade to put the "Electric" in their name?

I won't say too much more on the subject of piracy, not least because it would be a little hypocritical of me, but here's what I think it boils down to: piracy denies creators the ability to make their own decisions regarding their work. Yes, there is greed in the creative industries, and yes, it would be nice if everything operated under an artistic patronage model, and yes, artists can and have benefited from the free distribution of their work, and yes, the big publishing and distribution businesses are often terrible. But surely it's the artist's prerogative to make the decision on all of these issues. We aren't owed their creative output, so if they want to work within the establishment, it doesn't really matter whether or not you approve. It seems pretty arrogant to declare yourself better able or more entitled to make the decision for them. A part of me thinks that the rational response to a public that doesn't respect your control over your own work is to stop producing or releasing it. Thankfully not many react that way (it would be something of an overreaction).

I don't know. I'm exaggerating my position a little for the purposes of debate, but I genuinely am quite uneasy with unquestioning "yay free stuff" attitudes. I would definitely have pirated The Devil Wears Prada in that situation, though.

The minimal instrumentation creates a wonderful sense of space, and Visa från Utanmyra in particular manages to be both playful and melancholy in a way that appeals to me greatly. For reference, here's the folk song it was based on, under its original title:O tysta ensamhetThe words are pretty depressing, if you care to look them up.

Johansson died in a car crash in 1968. Here's a tribute to him by Georg and Sarah Riedel, the former being the double bass player and only other instrumentalist on Jazz på svenska:Ta hit ett piano! sa Jan JohanssonI particularly enjoyed the allusions to Visa från Utanmyra at the start and end.

Anyway, that's a lot of stuff no-one is interested in.

Last edited by James on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So I've realized that I really like tunes based on old folk songs. Most current example: Grateful Dead's Peggy-O. Now if someone would just make a smooth jazz arrangement of The Lost Lady Found I'd be a happy man.